IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v64y2021ics0160791x20312781.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Buhmann, Alexander
  • Fieseler, Christian

Abstract

The rapid innovation in artificial intelligence (AI) is raising concerns regarding human autonomy, agency, fairness, and justice. While responsible stewardship of innovation calls for public engagement, inclusiveness, and informed discourse, AI seemingly challenges such informed discourse by way of its opacity (poor transparency, explainability, and accountability). We apply a deliberative approach to propose a framework for responsible innovation in AI. This framework foregrounds discourse principles geared to help offset these opacity challenges. To support better public governance, we consider the mutual roles and dependencies of organizations that develop and apply AI, as well as civil society actors, and investigative media in exploring pathways for responsible AI innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:64:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x20312781
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X20312781
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101475?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helmut Willke & Gerhard Willke, 2008. "Corporate Moral Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Morals: A Critique of Palazzo/Scherer’s Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 27-38, August.
    2. Andreas Georg Scherer & Guido Palazzo & David Seidl, 2013. "Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 259-284, March.
    3. Alexander Buhmann & Johannes Paßmann & Christian Fieseler, 2020. "Managing Algorithmic Accountability: Balancing Reputational Concerns, Engagement Strategies, and the Potential of Rational Discourse," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 265-280, May.
    4. Voinea, Cristina, 2018. "Designing for conviviality," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 70-78.
    5. Mäkinen, Jukka & Kourula, Arno, 2012. "Pluralism in Political Corporate Social Responsibility," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 649-678, October.
    6. Christian Voegtlin & Andreas Georg Scherer, 2017. "Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(2), pages 227-243, June.
    7. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    8. Edwards, Lilian & Veale, Michael, 2017. "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'right to an explanation' is probably not the remedy you are looking for," LawArXiv 97upg, Center for Open Science.
    9. Selin, Cynthia & Hudson, Rebecca, 2010. "Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 173-182.
    10. Héloïse Berkowitz, 2018. "Meta-organizing firms' capabilities for sustainable innovation: A conceptual framework," Post-Print hal-01897722, HAL.
    11. Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby, 2010. "Governing the Global Corporation: A Critical Perspective," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 265-274, April.
    12. JinHyo Joseph Yun & Dooseok Lee & Heungju Ahn & Kyungbae Park & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2016. "Not Deep Learning but Autonomous Learning of Open Innovation for Sustainable Artificial Intelligence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Whelan, Glen, 2012. "The Political Perspective of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Critical Research Agenda," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 709-737, October.
    14. Mats Alvesson & André Spicer, 2012. "A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(7), pages 1194-1220, November.
    15. Dai, Yu-Xiao & Hao, Su-Tong, 2018. "Transcending the opposition between techno-utopianism and techno-dystopianism," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 9-13.
    16. Kerr, Anne & Hill, Rosemary L. & Till, Christopher, 2018. "The limits of responsible innovation: Exploring care, vulnerability and precision medicine," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 24-31.
    17. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    18. Andreas Georg Scherer & Guido Palazzo, 2011. "The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 899-931, June.
    19. Waheed Hussain & Jeffrey Moriarty, 2018. "Accountable to Whom? Rethinking the Role of Corporations in Political CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 519-534, May.
    20. Kate Crawford & Ryan Calo, 2016. "There is a blind spot in AI research," Nature, Nature, vol. 538(7625), pages 311-313, October.
    21. Guido Palazzo & Andreas Scherer, 2006. "Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 71-88, June.
    22. Brand, Teunis & Blok, Vincent & Verweij, Marcel, 2020. "Stakeholder Dialogue as Agonistic Deliberation: Exploring the Role of Conflict and Self-Interest in Business-NGO Interaction," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 3-30, January.
    23. Christian Voegtlin & Scherer Andreas Georg, 2017. "Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World," Post-Print hal-01540972, HAL.
    24. Rob Lubberink & Vincent Blok & Johan Van Ophem & Onno Omta, 2017. "Lessons for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: A Systematic Literature Review of Responsible, Social and Sustainable Innovation Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-31, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aitken, Mhairi & Ng, Magdalene & Horsfall, Dave & Coopamootoo, Kovila P.L. & van Moorsel, Aad & Elliott, Karen, 2021. "In pursuit of socially-minded data-intensive innovation in banking: A focus group study of public expectations of digital innovation in banking," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    2. Xing, Xinyu & Song, Mengmeng & Duan, Yucong & Mou, Jian, 2022. "Effects of different service failure types and recovery strategies on the consumer response mechanism of chatbots," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Chen, Lifeng & Khurram, Muhammad Usman & Gao, Yuying & Abedin, Mohammad Zoynul & Lucey, Brian, 2023. "ESG disclosure and technological innovation capabilities of the Chinese listed companies," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Kumar, Shashank & Raut, Rakesh D. & Queiroz, Maciel M. & Narkhede, Balkrishna E., 2021. "Mapping the barriers of AI implementations in the public distribution system: The Indian experience," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Hamid Akin Unver, 2022. "Using Social Media to Monitor Conflict-Related Migration: A Review of Implications for A.I. Forecasting," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Kulkov, Ignat, 2021. "The role of artificial intelligence in business transformation: A case of pharmaceutical companies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    7. Salih Tutun & Marina E. Johnson & Abdulaziz Ahmed & Abdullah Albizri & Sedat Irgil & Ilker Yesilkaya & Esma Nur Ucar & Tanalp Sengun & Antoine Harfouche, 2023. "An AI-based Decision Support System for Predicting Mental Health Disorders," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 1261-1276, June.
    8. Behera, Rajat Kumar & Bala, Pradip Kumar & Rana, Nripendra P. & Irani, Zahir, 2023. "Responsible natural language processing: A principlist framework for social benefits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    9. Wang, Yanjun & Li, Yongfang, 2023. "Chinese economic growth and sustainable development: Role of artificial intelligence and natural resource management," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    10. Zhang, Weidong & Zuo, Na & He, Wu & Li, Songtao & Yu, Lu, 2021. "Factors influencing the use of artificial intelligence in government: Evidence from China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    11. Hu, Mengyu & Wang, Jingyi, 2021. "Artificial intelligence in dance education: Dance for students with special educational needs," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. König, Pascal D. & Wenzelburger, Georg, 2021. "The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Lee, Dasom & Hess, David J. & Heldeweg, Michiel A., 2022. "Safety and privacy regulations for unmanned aerial vehicles: A multiple comparative analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gastón de los Reyes & Markus Scholz, 2023. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Corporate Political Activity: Uber and the Quest for Responsible Innovation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 51-69, April.
    2. Zhang, Stephen X. & Chen, Jiyao & He, Liangxing & Choudhury, Afreen, 2023. "Responsible Innovation: The development and validation of a scale," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    3. Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee, 2022. "Decolonizing Deliberative Democracy: Perspectives from Below," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 283-299, November.
    4. Tina C. Ambos & Katherine Tatarinov, 2022. "Building Responsible Innovation in International Organizations through Intrapreneurship," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 92-125, January.
    5. Sophie Bacq & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2022. "Stakeholder Governance for Responsible Innovation: A Theory of Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 29-60, January.
    6. Pasi Heikkurinen & Jukka Mäkinen, 2018. "Synthesising Corporate Responsibility on Organisational and Societal Levels of Analysis: An Integrative Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 589-607, May.
    7. Pilar Acosta & Mar Pérezts, 2019. "Unearthing Sedimentation Dynamics in Political CSR: The Case of Colombia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 425-444, March.
    8. Verena Girschik, 2020. "Managing Legitimacy in Business‐Driven Social Change: The Role of Relational Work," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 775-804, June.
    9. Wiarda, Martijn & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    10. Christian Voegtlin & Andreas Georg Scherer & Günter K. Stahl & Olga Hawn, 2022. "Grand Societal Challenges and Responsible Innovation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 1-28, January.
    11. Julia Rotter & Peppi-Emilia Airike & Cecilia Mark-Herbert, 2014. "Exploring Political Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(4), pages 581-599, December.
    12. Arno Kourula & Guillaume Delalieux, 2016. "The Micro-level Foundations and Dynamics of Political Corporate Social Responsibility: Hegemony and Passive Revolution through Civil Society," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(4), pages 769-785, June.
    13. Agata Gurzawska & Markus Mäkinen & Philip Brey, 2017. "Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-26, September.
    14. Jean-Pascal Gond & Luciano Barin Cruz & Emmanuel Raufflet & Mathieu Charron, 2016. "To Frack or Not to Frack? The Interaction of Justification and Power in a Sustainability Controversy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 330-363, May.
    15. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    16. Anna-Lena Maier & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, 2023. "Deliberating with the Autocrats? A Case Study on the Limitations and Potential of Political CSR in a Non-Democratic Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 11-32, April.
    17. Rea Wagner & Peter Seele, 2017. "Uncommitted Deliberation? Discussing Regulatory Gaps by Comparing GRI 3.1 to GRI 4.0 in a Political CSR Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(2), pages 333-351, December.
    18. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Helen Etchanchu, 2015. "Contextualizing Corporate Political Responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in Historical Perspective," Post-Print hal-01891961, HAL.
    19. Marie-Laure Salles-Djelic & Helen Etchanchu, 2015. "Contextualizing Corporate Political Responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in Historical Perspective," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01891961, HAL.
    20. Sandra Moog & André Spicer & Steffen Böhm, 2015. "The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 469-493, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:64:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x20312781. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.